Quantcast
Connect with us

WATCH: Eric Swalwell exposes Devin Nunes’ shady ties to Giuliani’s indicted henchman during impeachment hearing

Published

on

During today’s hearing in the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) referenced a POLITICO article from last month which reported that a lawyer who worked for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee when Devin Nunes (R-CA) was the committee’s chairman, fed information on Ukraine to President Trump.

According to the report, Trump believed at the time that Kashyap “Kash” Patel, who had “no discernible Ukraine experience or expertise, was actually the NSC’s top Ukraine expert.”

ADVERTISEMENT

While questioning former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, Swalwell asked if she had ever heard of Patel before, to which Hill replied that she did but it was “in passing,” later finding out that he worked for Nunes when she inquired at a later date.

Swalwell then asked Hill if she ever heard the name of the recently indicted Rudy Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas, “who was influencing President Trump and Rudy Giuliani about some of the debunked conspiracy theories you referenced earlier.”

“I have heard his name, yes,” Hill replied, adding that she was aware that Parnas was indicted for illegal campaign finance transactions.

Swalwell then referenced a Daily Beast story from this Wednesday with the headline, Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations. After asking that the article be entered into the record, Swalwell then turned to House Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

“Mr. Chairman, you have been falsely accused throughout these proceedings by the ranking members of being a ‘fact witness,'” Swalwell said. “Now, if this story is correct, [Nunes] may have been projecting, and in fact, he may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Watch the full exchange below:


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s why Trump contradicted his own White House on the Supreme Court rulings

Published

on

Following the Supreme Court's pair of 7-2 decisions rejecting President Donald Trump's claim to have absolute immunity from subpoenas, he blasted the ruling on Twitter, claiming he being unfairly targeted and the victim of "prosecutorial misconduct." However, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement saying that "President Trump is gratified by today’s decision."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘They deserve it’: Republican strategist tells GOP it’s their own fault for going down with Trump because ‘they know better’

Published

on

Republican strategist Susan del Percio said that there is no excuse for GOP members who failed to do the right thing and fight back against President Donald Trump when they had the opportunity.

Speaking to MSNBC's Joy Reid Thursday, del Percio called Trump "the anchor" around the GOP's necks, "dragging them down."

"But, you know what, they deserve it," she continued. "There are Republicans out there that deserve this because they know better. They should have been better on impeachment. They should have been holding him accountable all along. Now they are scared and worried about themselves. Well, boohoo, you brought it on. there's no excuse."

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump

Published

on

On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.

"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."

"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image